And two of the reasons or two aspects of this teaching that make it interpretable is that in the early teaching, when describing things, they were described in terms of characteristics as though that made the things established by way of their own characteristics. or and or that the things being described were objects which are . So ordinary people, when they see objects, when they experience and know objects, ordinary people think that the objects appear to them as though they were established by way of their own character.

[01:03]

and also the objects appear to be existing external or apart from the mind which knows them. This is the way it appears to ordinary people. And the early teachings of the Buddha were ... The Buddha talked in such a way that you could understand that he was describing phenomena as though they were established by way of their own character and or that they existed external to the mind which knows them that they existed in of the perception of them or that you could perceive things which existed independent of your perception of them this is the first turning of the wheel Second turning is saying that Paramahansa thought up that all things lack own being, and so on.

[02:09]

So he doesn't say the word contradiction, but it's implied that he sees the contradiction between the later teaching and the earlier teaching. And what I say seems to me that he's also asking, what about the first teaching? So he's questioning the first teaching without actually saying, what were you thinking when you taught the first teaching? He's specifically saying, what were you thinking when you taught the second wheel? But really, I think the Bodhisattva, for our benefit, was happy. I wonder, what was the Buddha thinking when he taught the first wheel? And what was the Buddha thinking when he taught the second wheel? And the Buddha says, great question. And what I was thinking of when I taught the second wheel, he's answering, was I was thinking of three kinds of things when I taught that all things lack own being. And then the sutra goes on to say that the Buddha, speaking to the bodhisattva, says, what is the lack of own being in terms of character?

[03:32]

The three types of lack of own being are own being in terms of character, own being in terms of... and own being, that's an ultimate own being, excuse me, a lack of own being. which is an ultimate lack of own being. Those are the three kinds. So then he says, what's the first kind? The lack of own being in terms of character, of phenomena. It is the imputational character. Why is this? The imputational character is a character posited in names and symbols, but it does not subsist by way of its own character. Therefore, it is a lack in terms of character. The imputational character is a character that's posited for things.

[04:39]

The imputational character is something that's imputed conceptually to things. And that something that's imputed is a character. A character that is not established by way of its own character. And what is that character that the imputation, that the imputational character is imputing? It is things are established by way of their own character. It is a conceptual imputation of a character of being established by way of its own character. The imputation of things existing

[05:45]

externally independent of perception. So the imputational character, once again, is a character that's not established by way of its own character, and it is in fact the imputation of such a character. However, the imputational character does have an own character. It does have an own character in the sense that it has character. It has a character that's specific to it. It has a defining character. And its defining character is that it is something that's imputed conceptually. That's its defining characteristic. So the defining characteristic of the imputational character, the defining character of it, the svalaksha of it, the particular specific character of it, is what?

[07:31]

I just said this, do you remember? No. That's not its... Did you hear what he said? He said that it exists by way of its own character. Okay? That's not defining character. Okay? That's not its defining character. What is its defining character? Yes? What? Yeah. It's an imputed concept. That's its defining. It's something that's... by conceptuality. That's its defining characteristic. Okay? Now, what is it that's imputed? That's what you said, Mike. What's imputed is that things exist by way of their own character.

[08:35]

And even more sharply defining this self that's imputed, it's that things are... things are established by way of their own character as reference to terms, to words, and conceptual consciousnesses. That things come by their own character as reference to conceptuality. That's what is imputed by the imputational process. And the imputational character is the imputation something by conceptuality. And there's two types of imputational character. One type of imputational character imputes something that exists, and one type of imputational character imputes something that doesn't exist. So the imputational character has specific character or a defining character.

[09:47]

However, if the sutra says that this character is not established by way of its own character, how is it established? How is the character established? We know its defining characteristic, but we aren't told how this thing, which has a defining characteristic of being something that's imputed conceptually, we haven't been told how it comes to exist, how it comes to subsist. How does it come to exist? Yes? By what? By things other than itself. By things other than itself. Yeah, that's just dependent core arising. And what other than itself is the way it comes to exist? Jamie? But what's the main thing? Because that's true of everything. What you just said is true of all things. So that's right. But what is the one you should mention about this one which you didn't mention yet?

[10:51]

Yes? Yes? Yeah, fantasy. It comes to, well, not just fantasy, but what kind of fantasy? It's fantasy, but what type? Leanne? What? What? Consciousness? Fantasy is a function of consciousness. What type of fantasy? Yes? What? Grasp. Yeah, it's a fantasy of a self. But what makes... The imputational character is a fantasy of a self. Okay? And what does a fantasy of a self depend on? Maya said, fantasy. But she didn't actually answer that question. She just answered... What does the imputational character... depend on how does it come to exist. It comes to exist depending on fantasy, and there's two kinds of fantasy.

[11:52]

One is fantasy of things that do not exist, and the other one is fantasy of things that do exist. And selves do not exist, so the imputational character which is imputing a self, it does not come to exist by way of its own character. It comes to exist by way of imagination or fantasy, and particularly if it's the imputation of a self, by the imagination, by the ability of our mind to imagine something that doesn't exist. We can also imagine things that do exist. So, for example, again, to imagine Denny is to imagine, is to have a fantasy about Denny. But to imagine Denny as being established by way of his own character, as the referent to the word Denny or the ideas of Denny, that is a different type of imagination.

[12:54]

That's imagining something that doesn't exist. There's no such Denny like that. But there is a Denny of this other kind. It's the Denny which, when I say Denny, where is he? Everybody looks over at him. That's the Denny. That's the referent of the word Denny. But if I say, where is the Denny? which is established as the referent of that word by way of its own character, you look for that one. So that's a fantasy too, but there's two types of fantasies, both of which are not established by way of their own character. Because their character is that they're imagining that it is the imagination, it is the idea of something being established by way of its own character. And nothing exists that way. So the imputational character lacks its own character.

[13:59]

It is an example. is an example of no, there's no character, there's no character nature there in the imputational. Even though the imputational has a specific characteristic, a defining characteristic, that defining characteristic is part of the way you find out that it doesn't have a character. Now part of it, Part of the difficulty in the Buddhist tradition is, great difficulty is that sometimes great, brilliant people disagree. So what are you going to do? And in this particular case, this particular term is a very important term, the term that Paramartha uses over and over again, of own character. This term is very important in understanding the rest of the sutra. And about how to interpret it.

[15:02]

Some say that the way Paramatma is using it, when he's talking to Buddha, the way he's using the term own character, he means, you know, it's literally svalakshana, he means specific character. That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is he doesn't mean specific character when he says own character. He means establishing phenomena by way of their own character. That's what he means by own character. Those are the two big opinions by a number of great scholars on both sides. However, I guess for me, my resolution to this conflict is that for those who say that what Paramartha is actually asking the Buddha about is when he says, okay, Buddha, you taught the own characteristic of the aggregates.

[16:16]

the own characteristic of form, of feelings, of perception. You taught the own characteristic of these things. You taught the own characteristic of all these categories. So you could understand that as you taught the specific characteristics of the things. However, you taught them in the context of phenomena being established by way of their own character. The other opinion is that when Paramartha was asking the Buddha when he said own character, when he asked, he said, Buddha, you taught all these things. When he was talking about the other opinion is he was saying, Buddha, you taught that all these things were established by way of their own character. That's what you meant by the own character of this and the own character of that. So if that's what you meant, how come you said this later?

[17:19]

The other one would be, you taught the specific characteristics of things, but in the context of people's ordinary way of looking at things, they took what you said as meaning that these specific characteristics of things were of that have these specific characteristics that are established by way of their own character. And when you talked about things that have these characters, these specific characters, like, for example, form, the first one, form, the defining characteristic of form, you know, the name of the first skanda is a rupaskanda, rupa. And the definition of the rupaskanda is basically what? Rupani. Rupa are the things that can be rupani. Rupani means hip. Forms are things that can be hit. Hit by what? By forms.

[18:23]

Forms are things that can be hit by electromagnetic radiation, by mechanical waves, by chemicals, by gases, and by tangible interaction. Those are the forms. That's the spa laksana. That's the own character. That's the specific defining character of forms. Buddha taught that, okay? in the first wheel. However, he taught it in the context of people thinking when he said of form that forms exist out there on their own by way of their own character, dash, they exist in consciousness. So one way is you taught these things in the context of people having realism as their philosophy. and you just let it go at that. But now you're telling them that there's no own being, that things are not no own being established by way of their own character. Things do not exist out there separately from perception.

[19:28]

And then the other interpretation would be that when Paramartha said that, he said, you taught own being as being. The own being of these things you meant that things had the character of being established by way of their own character. Yes? Oh. I was ready. I may not be in the future, but that's the moment I was. Okay, so that's difficult, right, what I just said? This is my way of making peace with mobs of scholars who are disagreeing, who are greater than me. But I feel today kind of okay telling you about this, and we can limp forward into the sutra now. Maybe. Okay, so that's the way it stands now and this is something for you to grapple with.

[20:37]

And for me too. So then we can go on from there a little further and Buddha defines second kind of lack of own being. He says in the first way of saying it, what is the lack of own being in terms of production or the production lack of own being? It is... the other dependent character. And again, it really means lack of self-production. Things are produced, they're just not produced by themselves. So the first one, the imputational character, is a character that's posited in terms of names and symbols. So it depends on names and symbols, and so in that way it's dependent too. And also it's not established by way of its own character. The second one, the production lack of own being, is the other dependent, which is the character that things are produced in dependence on things further than themselves.

[21:48]

But this is not called a character lack of own being, because in a sense it is It is produced by way of its own character. It is established by way of its own character. See the difference? The other dependent is established by way of its own character because its character is not established by way of its own character. It has that character of being other dependent. So in a sense, it is established by way of its character of being not established by way of its It is established by its character of being other-dependent. Its character is the way it's established, and it's the way it exists. So in that case, there's a difference. You see, it doesn't have the first kind of lack of own being. It has the second kind of lack of own being. It doesn't have an essence, and in particular, it doesn't have an essence in terms of producing itself or keeping itself going. We have a world that has different varieties of lack of own being, different kinds of emptiness.

[22:55]

And then this other dependent character is also an ultimate lack. It's actually another kind of lack of own being. It's an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that the ultimate is the object of purification, and the other dependent character is not the object. ...of obstacles to omniscience. Not. Therefore, it lacks being the ultimate, so it's an ultimate lack of own being. It's not an ultimate lack of own being because I mean, it's not an ultimate lack of own being, and it's not the ultimate. Excuse me, it is an ultimate lack of own being in the sense that it's not the ultimate. And why is it not the ultimate? Because it's not an object of purification of consciousness.

[24:01]

And why is it not an object of purification of consciousness? It is actually an object of purification of consciousness, but it's not the final, total clean-up. It's just an initial cleanup. Not the final cleanup of any sign of obstruction. It leaves a little bit of obstruction. So, as you will see in just a minute here, when the Buddha taught, you know, initially I teach the lack of own being in terms of production. Remember that part of the sutra? When he taught that, then he tells you about all this stuff that gets worked out. So that's kind of purification that happens to the consciousness. But then he says, and people have developed this, complete the assembly of the merit and wisdom, those good stuff happens, but they do not become completely liberated.

[25:05]

They must go on to study the deeper, the next aspects that pertain to this. And why is it that it's not the object of purification? Why is it that looking at dependent co-arising does not convince you that things do not exist by way of their own character? Well, it's not selfless, right. So when you look at dependent co-arising, although you do not see things existing by way of their own nature, and you don't actually see a self being formed, you don't see the absence of what you imagine as the self. There has to be kind of like an opposition to the belief that things exist on their own.

[26:07]

You have to look at something that opposes it to drop it. Just looking at where it isn't, isn't sufficient. So although you're looking at it and that you're looking at and meditating on the teaching of dependent co-arising and that starts to change the way you feel about phenomena, you can still hold some idea of self unchecked, unchallenged at some level even while looking at dependent co-arising. The dependent core rising doesn't challenge the idea of self as strongly as the absence of the imagination of self does. We have to actually look at this kind of like more stark contrast to the idea of things being established on their own. And again, when we think of self in terms of imagining that things exist, that objects exist separate from subjects, that they're two different things, we have to really concentrate on the teaching that that object is really a subject to counteract that sense that it's out there.

[27:34]

We have to meditate on the of the externality, rather than just the dependent co-arising of internality and externality. If you meditate on the dependent co-arising of objects and subjects, it makes sense that there's no separate subjectivity without an object, and there's no objects without subjectivity. As you meditate on that, that's good. But it's in addition to meditate on the non-existence of externality. That that concept is a conception of something that doesn't exist. Okay? Is that enough for now? So again, the other dependent characters also lack own being due to an ultimate lack of own being.

[29:05]

Paramartha Samvatgata, I teach that whatever is an object of observation for purification of phenomena is the ultimate. Since the other dependent character is not an object of purification, it is a lack of own being. It is an ultimate lack of own being, in the sense that it lacks being the ultimate. It doesn't have the own being of the ultimate. It doesn't. And also, what else doesn't have the lack of own being of the ultimate? The ultimate. Anything else lack the own being of the ultimate, Jamie? Huh? Yes, what else? That's the answer you gave before. Everything in the universe lacks the own being of the ultimate. Because even the ultimate lacks the own being of the ultimate, so everything else does too.

[30:10]

Matter of fact, do you know anything else, that thing, that any other things, that any other own beings that things lack? All lack own being. Nothing has own being. Right? Right? But then there's three kinds of lack of own being that are mentioned. Lack of own being in terms of character. Everything lacks own being, but there's varieties of lack of own being. So it's recommended that we learn about these three characters, and it's recommended that we learn about these three types of lack of own being. Actually, I don't know if it's recommended... you know, any place other than by me. I'm recommending it, that you learn these. The sutra actually doesn't say that there are three kinds of lack of own being. But I would recommend it. Okay. So after that, after introducing those three kinds of lack of own being, character, production, and fulfillment,

[31:21]

Then, again, it doesn't go on to the lack of own being, which is the lack of own being of the ultimate, or the lack of own being which is selflessness. It doesn't go on to that. He goes back to thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, I taught. all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, created from the start and naturally in a state of nirvana." Okay, so he's going back over it again now. So first of all he says, thinking of three kinds of lack of own being, I taught all things lack own being. And the three kinds of lack of own being are these three. And then he tells what the second one is and part of what the third one is.

[32:23]

Then he goes back and says, thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, and I was going to talk about when he was thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, he thought of, he said. So sometimes he was thinking of all three types of lack of own being. all things lack own being. I'm laughing because this sutra is so cool. This sutra, like, you get to tune in Buddha's mind according to this sutra. This may not be true. This may not really be Buddha's mind. But this particular view of Buddha's mind proposed in the sutra is that is recorded in the Prajnaparamita as saying, all phenomena lack own being, right? And now you get to tune in to the Buddha's mind when the Buddha was saying that. Buddha's saying, here's what I thought when I said that, and here's what I do think when I'm saying that. So sometimes when the Buddha says, all phenomena lack own being, the Buddha's thinking of kinds of lack of own being. That's what the sutra says, right? Okay?

[33:26]

But now he says... When I was thinking of one type of lack of own being, sometimes I just think of one type of lack of own being. And then I say, all phenomena lack of own being. It's like looking at one kind of lack of own being, sometimes at three, sometimes at two and a half. And then, when he's looking at that, sometimes the Buddha, when he's looking at one, two, three types of lack of own being, sometimes the Buddha says, all dharmas lack of own being. And sometimes Buddha says, the following kind of own being. So, anyway, this one says, Paramartha Samadgada, thinking of a lack of own beings in terms of character, I was thinking, I just happened to be thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, so I just thought I'd say, all phenomena are unproduced. unceasing, quiescent, penestrated, natural, in a state of nirvana. In other words, thinking about a lack of own being in terms of character, then you naturally start teaching that all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing.

[34:37]

How come my mind works that way? Paramartha Samadgata, that which does not exist by way of its own character is not produced. Does that make sense to everybody? That which does not exist by way of its own character is not produced. That which does not exist by way of its own character is not produced. Does somebody say what does that mean? I don't know, what do you think it means? I have a hard time understanding that. Pardon? I said I have a hard time understanding that. All you do? You don't understand this?

[36:04]

The Buddha's thinking that of a lack of one being in terms of character, okay? That's what he's thinking, all right? And then he thought all phenomena... So just, you've got to do it now. Imagine you're thinking of that phenomena lack own being in terms of character. Okay, you got that picture? Now can you see why you would say that things are unproduced? She got it. I didn't say you got it. You don't have what? Well, you've got to do this. You've got to think of a lack of own being in terms of character and then imagine how you would say all things are unproduced. Here's another translation.

[37:13]

With this underlying intent, you should understand underlying intent about the essential no essence of character that I preached, that things have no arising, have no passing away. Okay? Why is this? What does this mean? Paramartha Samadghata, that which does not exist by way of its own character is not produced. That which is not produced does not cease. If descriptive marks of things do not exist by themselves, then they do not arise. If descriptive marks do not exist by themselves, then they do not arise.

[38:19]

Pardon? Well, that was a different translation. Here's another one. Oh, you like the second one better? Okay, here's another one. If inherent characteristics of things have no existence at all, then they have no origination. Ah, well, which do you think it is? The things or the characteristics? Yes? You know, you can't have something that you can break off and then go right in and say, this is dumb.

[39:39]

You know, people are thinking, I can't use that. I think you know what works, but confusing the very first time is kind of a shock if they think they're not confused. Right. But this is saying that which does not exist by way of its own character. What's that? What does not exist by way of its own character? Everything? The imputational character. I said that the... And it does exist by way of its own character, right? It does. And its way of existing by its own character is that it exists depending on other things. The imputational character is things exist... in this imaginary way independently. So it doesn't exist by way of .

[40:39]

So it's not produced. That make sense now? Pardon? Right. Correct. But for different reasons. So thinking of the lack of own being in terms of character Thinking of a character lack of own being, okay? Thinking of the way the imputational does not exist by way of its own character. It does not exist by way of its own character because its character doesn't exist. So it doesn't exist that way. Thinking of that lack of own being in terms of character, then I said things are unproduced. And why are they unproduced? Because things that don't exist by way of their own character don't exist at all. All right?

[41:45]

Pardon? I'm glad she said something funny. It didn't get on the tape, though, so... That didn't get on tape either. Okay, so if it's not produced, everybody got how it's not produced? The imputational, the other dependent character, I mean the lack of own being, thinking of the lack of own being, which is based on the imputational. Depending on the imputational, I think of a lack of own being. Why is it a lack of own being? because it's not produced by its own character, because its own character is produced in a way that nothing's produced, namely, by itself. That's its nature. Its nature is a lack of one being in terms of character. Its character is a lack of one being in terms of character. It lacks the character which it is.

[42:49]

But it doesn't lack the specific character that it is. because it is an imagination of something that's dependent for rising. So it's not produced. So, of course, what's not produced does not cease. That which is not produced and does not cease is quiescent from the start. So this fantasy is quiescent from the start. It's acquired. And it's naturally in a state of nirvana. So no problem with this terrible fantasy. Unless you grasp it. And by the way, nirvana is kind of a problem if you grasp it too. But anyway, we'll get into that a little later. Really, the state of nirvana does not have even the slightest remainder that would pass beyond sorrow. Therefore, thinking of a lack of own being in terms of character, I taught all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, part of the natural state of nirvana.

[44:02]

So then another day I was thinking of a lack of own being in terms of production. Paramartha Samadghata. Oh, I wasn't thinking of that. One time I was thinking of an ultimate lack of own being that is distinguished by being the selflessness of phenomena. Now he's thinking about the ultimate. And I thought, all phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the state of nirvana. Why is this? The ultimate lack of own being, distinguished by being the selflessness of phenomena, abides solely in permanent, permanent time and everlasting, everlasting time. It is uncompounded reality. That uncompounded reality is free from all affliction. Moreover, Paramartha Samat Gata, the thoroughly established character of phenomena is also an ultimate lack of own being.

[45:13]

Why is this? Okay, before I go on, so another kind of lack of own being, an ultimate lack of own being, and he taught the same thing. And how come the thoroughly established character is an ultimate lack of own being? Paramartha samadgata, that which is the selflessness of phenomena, well, actually this is kind of complicated, that which is the, quote, selflessness of phenomena, unquote, of phenomena, is known as their lack of own being. That is the ultimate. Since the ultimate is distinguished as the lack of own being of all phenomena, it is an ultimate lack of own being. Here comes the easy part.

[46:31]

Paramartha Samadgata, for example, you should view the lack of character as being like a sky flower. Paramartha Samadgata, you should also view the lack of own being in terms of production as being like a magical apparition. the ultimate lack of own being should be viewed as being something other than those first two characters. For example, Paramartha Samadghata, just as space is distinguished by being just the lack of the own being forms in space, pervading everywhere, In the same way, the ultimate lack of own being is distinguished as being the selflessness of phenomena and should be viewed as all-pervasive and unitary. Paramartha Samat Gata.

[47:36]

Thinking of these three types of lack of own being, I talk about how all phenomena lack own being. That which is uncompounded, which abides in permanent, permanent time and everlasting time due to this very reality, is uncompounded. Therefore, it is unproduced and unceasing. Because it is free of all affliction, it is quiescent from the start and is naturally in a state of nirvana. Of an ultimate lack of own being, that is distinguished by being the selflessness of phenomena, I taught. All phenomena are unproduced, unceasing, quiescent from the start, and naturally in a state of nirvana.

[48:38]

Paramartha Samadghata, I do not designate the three types of lack of own being because sentient beings in the realms of sentient beings view the own being as distinct from the other dependent and the thoroughly established character in terms of own being. I don't teach the three types of lack of own being because sentient beings are this way. I don't teach it because of that. In other words, if sentient beings are that way, I wouldn't teach the three types of lack of own being. I would sit there and think about them all the time but I wouldn't say anything. I don't teach it because they view the other dependent and the thoroughly established as distinct in terms of own being.

[49:47]

I don't teach it because of that. In other words, I don't teach these three types of lack of own being because people don't confuse the ultimate with dependent core arising. I do teach it because they do confuse the ultimate with dependent core arising and they do confuse the imputational with the other dependent and the thoroughly established. That's why I do teach it. But he didn't say that. Again, it's put this negative Meditate on it easier. Because in order to get this, you have to work harder. It gets in deeper this way. So, anyway, I don't teach this stuff because people are assertive. I teach because they're not that way. superimposing, and how are they? Superimposing the own being of the imputational upon the own being of the other dependent and the thoroughly established.

[50:55]

We put the imputational on dependent core risings. We put the imputational on everything that we experience. But we also put it on emptiness. We also put it on suchness. So we put veils over dependent existence, which is arising by its own nature, which is that it's other-dependent. We put veils over that, and we also put veils over the object of purification, which is right there in the absence of the veil. Superimposing the own being onto the own being of the other dependent in the thoroughly established. Sentient beings subsequently attribute conventions of the character of the own being of the imputational to the other dependent, to the only dependent in the own being of the thoroughly established.

[52:03]

To the extent that they subsequently attribute such conventions, their minds are infused with conventional designation. Therefore, because of being of conventional designation or due to predispositions towards conventional designation, they strongly adhere to the character of the own being of the imputational as the own being of the other dependent and the thoroughly established. To the extent that they strongly adhere to this, they strongly adhere to the own being of the imputational as the own being of the other dependent. Due to these causes and conditions, in the future this view of the own being of the other dependent proliferates.

[53:07]

So we have this view and the transformation of alaya which then becomes the source to have this view again. And round and round it gets stronger and stronger the more we think this way. Based on this, the afflictive afflictions give rise to further afflictions. The affliction of actions, the affliction of actions give rise to further afflictions. For as long as sentient beings will wander, transmigrating among hell beings or animals or hungry ghosts or gods or assurers or humans, they will not pass beyond cyclic existence. Paramartha, initially I teach in a situation like this a lack of own being in terms of production to those beings who have not generated roots of virtue, who have not obtained obstructions, who have not ripened their continuum, and who do not have much conviction, and who have not completed

[54:30]

the accumulation of merit and wisdom. So that includes most people. Most people have not completed the accumulation of merit and wisdom, even among practitioners Most practitioners have not accomplished that. So this teaching is for all practitioners. But again, I wanted to say now that the Buddha is teaching this, and the Buddha is teaching this while thinking about it. these different kinds of lack of own being. So the Buddha's thinking about these different kinds of lack of own being, and interacting then with sentient beings, thinking about these types of lacks of own being, the Buddha teaches various ways.

[55:36]

He's also thinking about the three kinds of character, because the three characters are the basis for these three kinds of lack of own being. So the Buddha is thinking about these three characters and these three kinds of lack of own being. The Buddha thinks about these kinds of things and then in the Buddha mind the Buddha teaches in these different ways. So it seems reasonable that we could listen to these teachings given by the Buddha And listening to these teachings given by the Buddha, when we think of them, we are then mindful of what the Buddha is mindful of. We are thinking about what Buddha thinks about. In this way we are becoming Buddha, by tapping into the kinds of considerations which the Buddha is involved with. As we begin to be mindful of the kinds of things that Buddha is mindful of, as we begin to think about the things that Buddha thinks about, we people who have not completed the accumulation of merit and wisdom, we start to be transformed by letting our mind turn towards that which the Buddha's mind is turned towards.

[57:07]

And this starts the basic religious evolution, this meditation on the lack of own being in terms of production, which includes meditation on the other dependent because the other dependent is the basis upon which we study the lack of own being in terms of production. So we start practice there and then we continue. because the other two characters and the other two pertain to this basic character and this basic lack of own being. Basic in the sense of sort of the center of gravity of delusion and enlightenment or delusion and object of purification. So I said this Now, probably more than a hundred times, the importance of being mindful, in one sense, being mindful of this teaching, but also, now I'm saying in a different way, being mindful of what the Buddha's thinking about.

[58:27]

Because according to the sutra, the Buddha does think about, is thinking about, And again, the word thinking, the character for thinking, the Chinese character for thinking, Sanskrit word for thinking, chaitanya, the Chinese word, it means sort of the shape of your mind. It means kind of like how your mind is directed or intending. So your thinking or your intention, the inner intention of the Buddha is actually spends her time thinking about emptiness, spends her time thinking about these three kinds of lack of own being, which are lacks of own being of these three characters. So there's many ways to come at this, but basically this sutra is saying this is what Buddhists think about, and I'm saying the Buddha teaches this

[59:29]

with the implication that we could start thinking like a Buddha. And then the Buddha says, what will happen to us if we start . It speaks of the initial transformation that will occur to us if we meditate on dependent core rising and lack of own being in terms of production. I just thought I might tell you that... Well, one thing I wanted to tell you was that I'm pretty happy that you kind of sat here and stayed awake for... I was in all the corners and everything, but I didn't see anybody sleeping. And I think it's kind of a fortunate event that about 60 people in addition to all the other study you've been doing and chanting, that you listen to this talk about this sutra, I think it's really good that I said what I said, said what I said, and I'm glad you heard it and let it in to some extent.

[60:45]

I think it's a, I think it's a, what do you call it? It's an example of accumulating merit. There's a lot of virtue and merit in, I think, that this teaching is sinking into the bodies of the people in this practice period. That's how I feel. And I had something else to say, but before I said that, I thought I might say, what do you think? Amish to the Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. Amish to the Gambhirata Samdhi Nirmacana Sutra. Gambhirata means, that's a full name, means profound, the profound topic. of the unraveling and the revealing of the inner workings of the Buddha's mind. How wonderful! The great yogis of the past have given an entrée to the workings of the Buddha's mind.

[61:50]

And this invitation has been taken up over the centuries uh... and lots of people have enjoyed sporting around there and now you can too now that you've been given uh... entree to some extent that's all nothing to what the other thing i want to say before uh... show hosted homage uh... When Minneapolis, I grew up in Minneapolis, and there's some lakes in Minneapolis, and they're not very big lakes. There's one I grew up, I lived on from the time I was about two until I was five, and I lived like a block. And when I was a little kid, I never could swim up very far. And also when I was a kid, I never went out on a boat on the lake. But when I was older, I went out on a boat on the lake, and I'd lived in this lake for I actually lived right by the lake from two to five, and then I used to go hundreds of times over the years.

[63:03]

I used to go into the water a little ways and come out, and then walk around the lake. I knew the lake from lots of different angles, and it was a beautiful lake, and also the rich people lived around the lake. So there were beautiful big houses around the lake, which I used to like to look at, and they're still there. Huh? Lake Harriet. Lake Calhoun has some nice houses around too, but Lake Harriet has more. They're closer, you know, they're closer to the lake. But anyway, I used to walk around the lake, run around the lake, swim in the lake, and I used to walk across the lake in the winter because it was no longer water, it was ice. But when I went out in the boat one day and went for a few hours, I really was amazed at how different the lake looks when you're in the middle of it. So like, you know, if you look at, if you look at a, you know, part of the shore of the lake, just from that one angle, that shore of the lake looks a million different ways as you get closer to it.

[64:15]

If you look at it from a mile away, it looks one way, half a mile another way, a quarter of a mile. 10 feet another way, even in one direction. Then if you go from different directions, you go at the lake, which until you're out in the middle, you don't ever see all those different directions. There's infinite numbers of ways to experience the lake when you actually go out in it. And if you're in a boat, you can relax. If you're swimming, you're kind of like, you know, working. I did swim, but I wasn't really enjoying the scenery that much. a fish lives in the water, and no matter how far it swims, it never runs out of water. They never get bored. Can I have a bigger pool here? And that's kind of the way this sutra is, and other sutras too, is that, you know, at first you walk around the outside and you start seeing different angles, but then as you move into the middle of it, you just see millions of different ways that it can be seen.

[65:16]

And I just really feel that way. Sutra sort of requires lots of different views. I'm not saying the other ones don't, but I just... I'm getting that way about it. May our intention equally penetrate every...

[66:07]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_88.67